With 26 slots (18% per your post) and every runner, including Grace Fisher, I guess I wouldn't be losing sleep over the 7% chance that a transgender female will take one of them, any more than I lose sleep over the same happening with Boston entrants. I agree with you that transgender women have a big advantage over women in terms of athletic ability, but I guess I don't see that as paramount when it comes to a entry lottery. It's not ideal, but pick your battles.
What I am most concerned with is transgender women taking spots on podiums away from women. With Fisher, for example, the 7% chance of a female slot going to her seems like a fairly small thing, but the disproportionate chance she takes one of the top 3 or top 10 slots is much more problematic. I think it's also unfair that if that happens, someone must protest for her to be required to show proof that she's doing hormone treatment. And it doesn't sound like they even have a quantitative threshold for testosterone (as a result of the "hormone treatment"); they should, and it should be equivalent to what's used in T&F. And that's the absolute bare minimum. In general, I don't think transgender women should be allowed in elite / professional fields under any circumstances. Not sure this race can be described as elite or professional, though.
I think what Mr. Schranz was clearly getting at was, "If a transgender woman wins, will women who advocated for more women at Hardrock object?" I misconstrued this, I think, by focusing on the "Grace Fisher may be chosen in the lottery" angle.
And based on chatter trickling in from elsewhere, I think the issue may not so much "Will it rock boats if a trans woman wins?" but instead "Will it rock boats if a trans woman whose (medical) 'trans' status may be in question wins?"
A simple search of VO2 max averages and records will reveal one of the many stark differences in biological males and biological females. Can't we all just "trust the science?"
Wokish people only follow the SCIENCE IS REAL part of their rainbow-colored (if rapidly fading) lawn signs when the science in question doesn't contradict their desires. For example, the same people who insist that people trust biology and geology when it comes to evolution, the age of Earth, and climate c hange don't even want to treat genetics as a science. Or for that matter, basic anatomy in some cases.
In the process, they look at least as dick-twistingly, armpit-sniffingly stupid as the most ardent Young Earth creationists out there -- a crowd Wokish people like to malign.
I'm glad so many of us have so much fucking free time.
What's a Kevin Beck? Who's heard of it? Oh, only when another blog writer links to it's nonsensical, emotional agenda-driven "journalistic" writing on substack, in a closely-guarded echo chamber.
And yet not only did you manage to find this site, but you're apparently also being held captive here against your will!
But your stock 2021 response is helpful in what it illustrates. Instead of either explaining what you don't like about a post or simply not reading the blog, you want me to _quit writing_. You cannot handle, for some pathological reason, the idea that people might read and agree with something someone else writes that you dislike. All while ripping me for supposedly avoiding broader discussions.
You hide your own name *and* you want my opinions better hidden from...well, *you*, and you're calling me a coward? To borrow a familiar phrase, well done as always.
Oh, one last thing. For the epitome of an emotionally driven agenda, please see "trans girls are girls." You're welcome!
#Triggered. Enjoy your Saturday night, glad I proved a point to most people who will see this.
Also, people are anonymous because they don't trust you, or you ability to discuss with good intention. You already have your conclusion and you will cherry pick and emotionally argue your way to it. Awfully angry on the internet, can't even imagine you in real life. Enjoy your little bubble.
So, you're wrapping up your contribution to the world of #adultdialogue by declaring, as if it weren't already obvious, that you're nothing more than a troll with no interest in describing what those #cherrypicked and #emotionladen arguments might be.
As you may have seen here, I recently went as far as writing a letter to the NYT to point out the existence of a blatant, extended lie by one of its editor-columnists. Obviously, I used my own name. This drew no response from the NYT. All of this came after repeated fruitless efforts on Twitter to elicit a defense from Lindsay Crouse of one of her many, many bullshit statements.
So who's actually trying to provoke a direct response and who's doing the hiding? Ah, wait...complaining about a massive media outlet's unrepentant lying is just a "moral panic."
I don't care that you won't reveal your identity (which you've given away to me anyway, not that anyone else needs to know). It's just that people who comment anonymously while offering nothing but static and bullshit are doing exactly what you suggest I do -- discussing things with ill intentions.
You really are a funny guy. In the course of repeatedly telling me to go away, to get a life, that I rage away in isolation, etc., you add that you hope people see this comment thread because it will embarrass me, or something.
You're a coward, but more to the point is that you have offered nothing of substance here -- nothing. Just "You suck." It says a great deal that the few people who claim they could counter the illogical shit I write somehow neve do -- and in fact almost never even quote or refer to what I say. And If you're getting giggles from the fact that I have kept pattering out replies, well, you must be having a great Saturday night yourself. Seems to be a thing.
As a woman who is dying to run Hardrock 100 I agree wholly with Amelia Boone’s twitter post. I have run several races that Grace Fisher has also run and she is a lovely human and works hard to balance running and regular life/work/family if she were to “take my spot” as this blog posits I wouldn’t be any more or less upset than if Amelia Boone did.
It's not that I myself see Fisher running as a female at Hardrock as wrongfully taking anyone's spot. I do believe that far more women runners see it as such than will ever publicly admit it, and the way things go on Twitter is a great example of why they bite their virtual tongues. I don't think my post was clear on this.
Now that I've thought about it some more, I'd not only like to see Fisher accepted, I'd like to see her win next year and break the women's event record. And, joining the chorus of "nothing to lose"-style support, I too would happily "yield" "my" Hardrock spot to Fisher were I a woman not selected in the 2022 lottery.
"she is a lovely human and works hard to balance running and regular life/work/family"
I have no reason to doubt this whatsoever. But while it's always good to have more of those people around, personality traits don't enter into the "fairness" equation.
With 26 slots (18% per your post) and every runner, including Grace Fisher, I guess I wouldn't be losing sleep over the 7% chance that a transgender female will take one of them, any more than I lose sleep over the same happening with Boston entrants. I agree with you that transgender women have a big advantage over women in terms of athletic ability, but I guess I don't see that as paramount when it comes to a entry lottery. It's not ideal, but pick your battles.
What I am most concerned with is transgender women taking spots on podiums away from women. With Fisher, for example, the 7% chance of a female slot going to her seems like a fairly small thing, but the disproportionate chance she takes one of the top 3 or top 10 slots is much more problematic. I think it's also unfair that if that happens, someone must protest for her to be required to show proof that she's doing hormone treatment. And it doesn't sound like they even have a quantitative threshold for testosterone (as a result of the "hormone treatment"); they should, and it should be equivalent to what's used in T&F. And that's the absolute bare minimum. In general, I don't think transgender women should be allowed in elite / professional fields under any circumstances. Not sure this race can be described as elite or professional, though.
I think what Mr. Schranz was clearly getting at was, "If a transgender woman wins, will women who advocated for more women at Hardrock object?" I misconstrued this, I think, by focusing on the "Grace Fisher may be chosen in the lottery" angle.
And based on chatter trickling in from elsewhere, I think the issue may not so much "Will it rock boats if a trans woman wins?" but instead "Will it rock boats if a trans woman whose (medical) 'trans' status may be in question wins?"
A simple search of VO2 max averages and records will reveal one of the many stark differences in biological males and biological females. Can't we all just "trust the science?"
Wokish people only follow the SCIENCE IS REAL part of their rainbow-colored (if rapidly fading) lawn signs when the science in question doesn't contradict their desires. For example, the same people who insist that people trust biology and geology when it comes to evolution, the age of Earth, and climate c hange don't even want to treat genetics as a science. Or for that matter, basic anatomy in some cases.
In the process, they look at least as dick-twistingly, armpit-sniffingly stupid as the most ardent Young Earth creationists out there -- a crowd Wokish people like to malign.
I'm glad so many of us have so much fucking free time.
What's a Kevin Beck? Who's heard of it? Oh, only when another blog writer links to it's nonsensical, emotional agenda-driven "journalistic" writing on substack, in a closely-guarded echo chamber.
Please get a real job.
And yet not only did you manage to find this site, but you're apparently also being held captive here against your will!
But your stock 2021 response is helpful in what it illustrates. Instead of either explaining what you don't like about a post or simply not reading the blog, you want me to _quit writing_. You cannot handle, for some pathological reason, the idea that people might read and agree with something someone else writes that you dislike. All while ripping me for supposedly avoiding broader discussions.
You hide your own name *and* you want my opinions better hidden from...well, *you*, and you're calling me a coward? To borrow a familiar phrase, well done as always.
Oh, one last thing. For the epitome of an emotionally driven agenda, please see "trans girls are girls." You're welcome!
#Triggered. Enjoy your Saturday night, glad I proved a point to most people who will see this.
Also, people are anonymous because they don't trust you, or you ability to discuss with good intention. You already have your conclusion and you will cherry pick and emotionally argue your way to it. Awfully angry on the internet, can't even imagine you in real life. Enjoy your little bubble.
So, you're wrapping up your contribution to the world of #adultdialogue by declaring, as if it weren't already obvious, that you're nothing more than a troll with no interest in describing what those #cherrypicked and #emotionladen arguments might be.
As you may have seen here, I recently went as far as writing a letter to the NYT to point out the existence of a blatant, extended lie by one of its editor-columnists. Obviously, I used my own name. This drew no response from the NYT. All of this came after repeated fruitless efforts on Twitter to elicit a defense from Lindsay Crouse of one of her many, many bullshit statements.
So who's actually trying to provoke a direct response and who's doing the hiding? Ah, wait...complaining about a massive media outlet's unrepentant lying is just a "moral panic."
I don't care that you won't reveal your identity (which you've given away to me anyway, not that anyone else needs to know). It's just that people who comment anonymously while offering nothing but static and bullshit are doing exactly what you suggest I do -- discussing things with ill intentions.
You really are a funny guy. In the course of repeatedly telling me to go away, to get a life, that I rage away in isolation, etc., you add that you hope people see this comment thread because it will embarrass me, or something.
You're a coward, but more to the point is that you have offered nothing of substance here -- nothing. Just "You suck." It says a great deal that the few people who claim they could counter the illogical shit I write somehow neve do -- and in fact almost never even quote or refer to what I say. And If you're getting giggles from the fact that I have kept pattering out replies, well, you must be having a great Saturday night yourself. Seems to be a thing.
As a woman who is dying to run Hardrock 100 I agree wholly with Amelia Boone’s twitter post. I have run several races that Grace Fisher has also run and she is a lovely human and works hard to balance running and regular life/work/family if she were to “take my spot” as this blog posits I wouldn’t be any more or less upset than if Amelia Boone did.
It's not that I myself see Fisher running as a female at Hardrock as wrongfully taking anyone's spot. I do believe that far more women runners see it as such than will ever publicly admit it, and the way things go on Twitter is a great example of why they bite their virtual tongues. I don't think my post was clear on this.
Now that I've thought about it some more, I'd not only like to see Fisher accepted, I'd like to see her win next year and break the women's event record. And, joining the chorus of "nothing to lose"-style support, I too would happily "yield" "my" Hardrock spot to Fisher were I a woman not selected in the 2022 lottery.
"she is a lovely human and works hard to balance running and regular life/work/family"
I have no reason to doubt this whatsoever. But while it's always good to have more of those people around, personality traits don't enter into the "fairness" equation.